User talk:Sarrc
Hi there! Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements. :' ' is a great first stop, because you can see what other people have been editing right this minute, and where you can help. :If you haven't already, please ' and create a user name! It's free, and it'll help you keep track of all your edits. :'Questions? You can ask at the Help desk or on the associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page! :Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit. :Please see any policies that have been passed. I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! :[[User:General Grham|'General Grham' ]]Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ---- :First off: as for the spelling if of your name, mistakes happen. We apoligize, its just we can't be be expected to remember every single user that is on this wiki. Especially this early on. Sarrc. Got it. Okay, let me explain why it seems odd about all these users. You make an article that ties in to someone elses article. You all seem on one team while us admins are on the other. I don't want to us to be like this, but we, as admins, must uphold our policies (including sockpuppeting...I'm not accusing you, I'm just mentioning). Now, about the 'On Fire' article, please. Think about it: When has a phrase (a COMBINATION of two words!!!) been allowed as a wiki article. If we consider 'On fire' as a proper article, we also must consider 'In fire', and 'Up in flames' and the like as proper articles. Then what does this wiki become: A wiki of terms and phrases, no less. I apoligize for confusing the author of the article with Walker... (See, I can't remember all the names. I know thats not it...its like OnWalker or something...), but it seemed to make sense that his article would link to another one of his articles. Anyway, I hope that we can work out our problems, but again, we must uphold our rules. Anarchy is not a preferable course of government, and we are not going to revert to it. If a Monarchy is needed to uphold our policies, so be it. Democracy seems so much easier, though. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC) ::"but it seemed to make sense that his article would link to another one of his articles."'' ... Entropa isn't my article either, dammit! Neither Entropa nor on fire are my articles! Entropa was written by User:LV and on fire was written by Sarrc! I am neither of these two people. --ItsWalky 02:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) :::If you would like to be assured, read what I said in ItsWalky's (okay...remember, remember, ItsWalky). Trust me, I am majorly embarrased about what I've done. Note the I. I''' messed up, not the staff. Actually, General Grham tried to tell me I was wrong, but I really didn't even notice. I apoligize. On a furthur note, I was going to say a few things: Our Admin page should be up and running, and if you have any complaints, don't post them across user talk pages. Post them on the admin talk page. Second, it may seem unnatural to say "So-and-so is flame body, but instead, you do this. Body|on fire]. I bet you may know that, but to refresh your memory, thats how it sounds good. Okay, again, I'm sorry about my major mistake. Trust me, I'm not going to do that again! Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) ::::I really don't see what the problem is. Especially since this page's style guide for the naming of articles does not support anything you're saying. The only thing that is says you should do is capitalize the first letter. I did that. Plus, I'd imagine a two word phrase would be used as a title for a wiki article when those two words best reflect the subject the article is about. The definition of fanon says that it must be what is commonly used. They don't say "The human torch has body flame." They say "The human torch is ''on fire." I don't care if it sounds better, "Flame awesomeness of super daredevil proportions!" sounds better too. I care that it's wrong. My fanon tells me that I have to abide by those rules, and I don't really see how you can declare one person's fanon more valid than another, especially on this site. Sarrc 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC) ::I'm sorry for anything that happened. I have an explanation. ItsWalky was an avid supporter of Entropa, therefore everyone thought it was his article and not LV's. Therefore any link on this wiki would also be his. The Rotty and ItsWalky thing is a completley different story. I nerer said anything about wanting to delete On fire. Now to the top of your message. The other members of this wiki didn't think On fire was a proper article. Therefore they wanted it deleted. ::You wanted to help another user with his articles. That's fine, unless you didn't ask. '''Policy states that you have to ask before working on someone elses articles. On thother fanon wikis you could get banned for working on someones article. If you get anymore displeasure, feel free to post. I am sorry for anything that has happened and I'll try to fix it. Please work on On fire more and maybe other users would concider it a better article. Also if you have anymore ploblems feel free to put it up on the Transfanon Council. [[User:General Grham|'General Grham' ]]Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I don't think I ever threatened to ban you, or anything like that. I said, very clearly, this: The closest thing to a threat was saying Monarchy would be used, but its the truth. Now, again, I have to apoligize. I've been saying, policy this, policy that, when our current policies don't really reflect what we're saying. I have told Grham that we need a rewrite of the MoS and need to expand on a few more. Right now, your On fire article is absolutely fine. No where in the policies is it not allowed. After the rewrite, that may not be the case. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) FA's I must agree with you. I think that the FA's should be scrapped until at least like Augest or September, so people have time to make decent articles. I think the FA think was a little rushed, and we never really voted for a Review board either. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) :I'm not sure what GG meant, but I can assure you that to my knowledge you haven't broken the no edit policy. Also, check out this and please vote/discuss. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Transformers Fanon Wiki is not Wikipedia I'm not going to delete an article because it doesn't make sense (excepting Vandalism). As for the name, I offered a suggestion to change the name '''and the article' so that it would be Transformer-related. But I am not deleting articles because they don't make sense, or becuase of the title, or because "your charecter is lame", or whatever. There is one reason I proposed deleting it. It had nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with Transformers. Okay now, lets approach this from a differant viewpoint. Would you go and make an article about Luke Skywalker on this wiki? No! Its a Transformers wiki. Would you make an article about George Washington? No! Its a Transformer wiki. Then, please tell me, is it okay to make an article about a phrase that, as the two above examples also were, has nothing to do with Transformers? If your answer is yes, I'm afraid there is nothing else that I can do, and you either deal with our rule, ignore it, or leave (as you see, not the perferable choice). You might argue that 'Wookieepeida has an article about solatire!' It does, but its because its canon for Star Wars. For us Fanon Wikis, there is no point in created small articles like that, because we aren't obsessed with created every single thing that is mentioned in Star Wars, ever. We should be content to create the large articles, because most every user has their own seperate storyline. So I guess it comes down to what we, as the administration, want for this wiki. We want this site to be for non-canonical stories about Transformers. We don't want people obsessing over tiny, non-important, off-subject objects. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. If you feel you cannot deal with that rule, I'm sorry, but then you better leave. I would perfer you stay; after all, you're quite an debating opponent , but the admins have to uphold their policies. One more thing: I understand you may not like this rule I am proposing, but look around and find how many Fanon wikis do contain the tiny articles like On fire. Not many, if any. Before I sign off, one final note. You said in the FA nomination that Ducimon (I think thats the name) had links to some small, non-important articles. In general, Review Boards in most wiki's look at the article itself and the fact that it doesn't have redlinks opposed to the fact that the links are to smaller articles. I can't tell you how to judge the article, but in general, its done that way. Anyway, I hope you understand my arguement. Cheers, Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) More clarification Well, now that you made that article, Entropa is technically stealing fanon. If an article has red-links then the user will probobly make those articles. Since on fire is no longer LV's then he'd have to ask permission to have it in his article. (Althouygh you'd probobly let him before he asks ) Anyway, I'm used to something at SWF: If you have a link to someone elses article, you're stealing fanon. In this case all you have to to is tell LV and it will all be behind us. [[User:General Grham|'General Grham''' ]]Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 14:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. What you said about the voting policy, without it we could have another ItsRotty thing. Long story, if you haven't already heard it. 25 edits isn't as much as it sounds. :Yeah, I haven't had time to respond yet...sorry. Still don't right now. Probably tommorrow I'll address all your arguements...to be truthful, I enjoy a debate opponent . Anyway: I have to say one thing -- not an arguement, just a fact -- about the 'Transfanon is not Wikipedia. Check Grham's talk page, and the new site notice (not up yet) had a link to the 'Transfanon is not Wikipedia' talk page, specifically for debating that rule. Its just hard to propose one section of a rule, while the other three/four remain policies and not to be debated in favor of keeping. Anyway, any furhter arguements lets move there...let me answer you (here) and any furhter arguements go ahead and put on that talk page. Kay? And, btw, I hope we can start getting to the copromise stage soon. Gtg, be bacck tommorrow. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) RE: Hello Right now we are working on the Manual of Style rewrite and most of the other policies are based on the Manual of Style. If that changes, the changes will be applied to the layout guide, naming articles, and the tense policy. I've already been thinking about making a copywrite policy, but also note that Star Wars Fanon made theirs about a year after it was created. We've been around about two weeks. And what you said about most of the articles having "More Content Soon", an author can't manage and finish six articles in two weeks. If you have any policy suggestions, put them in the Transfanon Council. I will about the upload policy. [[User:General Grham|'General Grham''' ]]Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I waive my priority to write the "On fire" article, acknowledge that Sarrc has written an article by that name, and formally request that I be allowed to link to it in my Entropa article. -LV 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) :Yes!!! Were finally getting somewhere! I agree with most of your points; if I have time I will start to adress them right now. Yeah, I think I will. Stand by to recieve transmissions ;]. Phobi''Speak To the Almighty...'' 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)